Standing Committee G

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Human Tissue Bill

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Power to de-accession human remains

Andrew Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in
clause 49, page 31, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
 '(5) Schedule [consequential amendments relating to de-accession] shall have effect.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New schedule 1—Consequential Amendments Relating To De-accession— 
Imperial War Museum Act 1920. 
 1 (1) The Imperial War Museum Act 1920 (c.16) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section (2) (powers and duties of Board) after subsection (1)(c), there is inserted— 
 ''(cc) dispose of any human remains belonging to the Museum (including things with which the human remains are mixed or bound up) in accordance with the provisions of section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004.'' 
 National Maritime Museum Act 1934. 
 2 (1) The National Maritime Museum Act 1934 (c.43) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 2 (establishment of Board of trustees and duties of the Board) after subsection (3)(b), there is inserted— 
 ''(cc) dispose of any human remains vested in them for the purposes of the Museum (including things with which the human remains are mixed or bound up) in accordance with the provisions of section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004.'' 
 British Museum Act 1963. 
 3 (1) The British Museum Act 1963 (c.24) is amended as follows. 
 (2) After section 5 there is inserted— 
 ''5A Powers of British Museum Trustees under the Human Tissue Act 2004 
 The Trustees of the British Museum may dispose of any human remains vested in them and comprised in their collections (including things with which the human remains are mixed or bound up) in accordance with the provisions of section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004.'' 
 (3) After section 8 there is inserted— 
 ''8A Powers of National History Trustees under the Human Tissue Act 2004 
 The Natural History Trustees may dispose of any human remains vested in them and comprised in their collections (including things with which the human remains are mixed or bound up) in accordance with the provisions of section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004.''
 National Heritage Act 1983. 
 4 (1) The National Heritage Act 1983 (c.47) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 6(3) (acquisition and disposal of objects by Board of the Victoria and Albert Museum), after paragraph (c), there is inserted— 
 ''(cc) the disposal is an exercise of a power conferred by section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or''. 
 (3) In section 14(3) (acquisition and disposal of objects by Board of the Science Museum), after paragraph (c), there is inserted— 
 ''(cc) the disposal is an exercise of a power conferred by section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or''. 
 (4) In section 20(3) (acquisition and disposal of objects by Board of the Armouries), after paragraph (c), there is inserted— 
 ''(cc) the disposal is an exercise of a power conferred by section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or''. 
 Merseyside Museums and Galleries Order 1986. 
 5 (1) The Merseyside Museums and Galleries Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/226) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In Article 6 (acquisition and disposal of works and objects), after paragraph (2)(c), there is inserted— 
 ''(cc) the disposal is an exercise of a power conferred by section 49 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or''.'.

Andrew Murrison: The clause gives powers to bodies to de-accession human remains. My understanding is that its purpose is to allow the remains of indigenous people to be returned to their countries of origin. We welcome this measure, but we are concerned about the drafting. Some of the bodies that are mentioned in the Bill have expressed concerns about the position in which the measure would place their trustees.
 The amendment and the new schedule would get round that for all of the bodies that are listed, with the exception of the Museum of London. Under the legislation governing that body, its governors are allowed to de-accession human remains on the authority of a majority of two thirds of the governors, so it is unnecessary to include it in new schedule 1. For the remainder, we propose powers for the trustees of the bodies, all of which are governed by separate Acts. The amendment would make consequential amendments to that legislation to enable the trustees to exercise the powers that we propose to give them. 
 It is worth pointing out that we are talking about powers, not obligations. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is up to the museums or bodies concerned to de-accession remains; there is no obligation on them. However, we hope very much that they will agree to requests to de-accession and return the remains of indigenous peoples, as that, as I understand it, is the purpose of the clause. I commend the amendment to the Committee and hope that the Minister will accommodate it.

Rosie Winterton: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are not aware of any representations having been made about that issue arising from the clause by any of the organisations or museums that he mentioned. As he said, new schedule 1 seeks to insert references to clause 49 into the governing legislation of the museums concerned. It and the amendment are unnecessary, because subsection (5) makes it clear that the power given by the clause to each museum is a freestanding power, in
 addition to the other powers in the legislation that governs them. The clause is technically correct and it is the appropriate means by which to grant power under the Bill to national museums to de-accession human remains.
 I undertake to go back to the organisations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I will ask the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to check that we have not overlooked any problems. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel that the clause satisfactorily covers the issues that he has raised, but we shall check in case anything has been missed out or the organisations have any concerns that they have not told us about, and if there are such concerns we shall come back. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Murrison: With the assurance that the Minster will make further inquiries on this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 6 agreed to. 
 Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Orders and regulations

Amendments made: No. 163, in 
clause 54, page 32, line 11, leave out '47(7),'. 
No. 164, in 
clause 54, page 32, line 12, after '56(10)' insert 
 'and paragraph 10 of Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary)'. 
No. 165, in 
clause 54, page 32, line 14, leave out ', 47(7)'. 
No. 166, in 
clause 54, page 32, line 14, after '56(10)' insert 
 'or paragraph 10 of Schedule (Schedule 46: Supplementary)'. 
No. 180, in 
clause 54, page 32, leave out line 41. 
No. 181, in 
clause 54, page 32, line 43, at end insert— 
 'paragraph 10 of Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary);'. 
 No. 167, in 
clause 54, page 33, line 1, leave out '47(7)' and insert 
 '56(10) in order to amend section 56(9) so far as having effect for the purposes of Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary), or under paragraph 10 of Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary)'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.] 
 Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - General interpretation

Amendments made: No. 109, in 
clause 56, page 33, line 42, at end insert— 
 '( ) In this Act, references to public display, in relation to the body of a deceased person, do not include— 
 (a) display for the purpose of enabling people to pay their final respects to the deceased, or 
 (b) display which is incidental to the deceased's funeral.' 
No. 110, in 
clause 56, page 34, line 9, after first 'sister,' insert 'grandparent, grandchild,'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: I rise to raise with the Minister for future consideration the question of definitions. It is not my purpose to reopen the debate on clause 1 and schedule 1, but despite the Under-Secretary putting on the record the term ''public weal'' to explain public health monitoring—we have since determined how he meant that be spelled, and some of us even know what he meant, although I am sure that he did throughout—it is still not clear what such monitoring includes by way of epidemiological examinations. He accepted that there may have been an issue, but said that such examinations would generally be included but would not necessarily mean any research done on samples that were irreversibly anonymised and would always remain unlinked from the patient's record. I do not want to misquote him, but I thought that was his view.
 I know that that is not a matter for debate now. However, regardless of whether the Government accept that the drafting needs to be wider than it is, if we are still questioning the issue in Committee it might be worth their thinking about taking the opportunity at a later stage—or putting my mind completely at rest now, which I think would be difficult—to clarify exactly what is covered and what is not. As the issue comes under schedule 1, people may feel deterred from undertaking perfectly legitimate activities. I do not believe that it can be left to codes of practice, since there will be genres of research and research propositions that will evolve more quickly than codes of practice are amended. 
 I hope that the Minister will accept that thought in the spirit in which it is meant. It might save us time in later stages if we can have further clarification.

Rosie Winterton: We will look back at the remarks made earlier in the Committee. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I assure him that, if we feel that more can be done to clarify the position, we will return to the matter.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 6 - Removal of relevant material following death

'(1) No removal from the body of a deceased person, for use for a scheduled purpose, of any relevant material of which the body consists or which it contains shall be effected except by a registered medical practitioner, who must have satisfied himself by personal examination of the body that life is extinct. 
 (2) For the purposes of this section ''relevant material'' does not include eyes or parts of eyes.'.—[Dr. Evan Harris.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Evan Harris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This is a probing new clause, if there is such a thing—I believe that there is. I am very pleased that it was selected. There were alternative ways of raising the issue, such as an amendment, but by the time the matter became apparent, we had considered the relevant clauses. 
 The new clause consists of the terminology used in an earlier Act that will be repealed by the Bill. I accept that it is clearly ridiculous to suggest that a registered medical practitioner should be the only one to remove organs. The Minister does not even need to put on the record the fact that that is now out of date. I want to find out whether it is the Government's intention to drop the requirement that there should be a personal examination of the body by someone, presumably a registered medical practitioner, before such acts are carried out. If that is their intention, why is the requirement being dropped? That was a requirement in earlier legislation, however imperfect, and it has not been translated into the Bill. If I am wrong, I will accept that, and I hope that the Minister will have mercy on me, given that we are near the end of our proceedings.

Andrew Murrison: I was about to launch into an attack on the hon. Gentleman for holding medical practitioners up as the only profession that could remove organs. He will be aware that a number of professions can do that. I was going to ask him why he had omitted teeth, because dentists are pre-eminently adept at removing teeth—

Stephen Ladyman: Like the tooth fairy.

Andrew Murrison: The Under-Secretary is reflecting on his moment of glory in an earlier sitting.
 Dental practitioners would also be included, but quite apart from the medical and dental professions, vast numbers of people are trained and competent to be involved in the procedure. However, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has reassured me by explaining that this is a probing motion, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Rosie Winterton: What the new clause does and what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is trying to get at seem to be two different things. Let me give some background information about the Human
 Tissue Act 1961, on which the measure is based. That Act was introduced to made it possible for tissue and organs to be removed for transplantation; it also authorised the removal of tissue for other purposes. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Act originally provided that only doctors could remove the tissue. However, in 1986, an exception was made for eyes, when approval was given, as the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said, for less qualified technicians to undertake the removal of eyes to retrieve corneas. As has been said, although that is to be done under the supervision of a medical practitioner, the measure builds on experience in other countries which shows that properly trained technicians can retrieve a wide range of tissue, such as bone, tendons and heart valves.
 The Bill works differently from the 1961 Act. It does not specify exactly who must do what. Removal of human tissue from the deceased for transplantation will fall within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority, which will have a duty to prepare codes of practice on the definition of death and on removal of tissue from the deceased for scheduled purposes, including transplantation. Those will set out the standards of training and experience, and the practices to be followed by persons undertaking such activities. It is clearly preferable—and I feel that this is what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was getting at—for retrieval of organs, tissues or cells to be undertaken by people who are specifically trained for the purpose, whether or not they are medical practitioners. 
 I was asked why it need not be a doctor who confirms death before tissue can be removed. The general requirement regarding death certification remains unaffected; it has to be done by a doctor. However, the Bill is about the removal of tissue after death. Removal before death without consent and where it is not in the person's best interests is an offence. No further provision is, therefore, needed with regard to that matter. 
 To an extent, the hon. Gentleman and I are approaching the matter from the same angle. I hope that I have clarified it and that he feels able to withdraw the motion.

Evan Harris: Yes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 2 - 'Section 46: Supplementary

Part 1
 Qualifying consent 
1 This Part of this Schedule makes provision for the interpretation of ''qualifying consent'' in section 46(1)(a)(i).
 2 (1) In relation to analysis of DNA manufactured by the body of a person who is alive, ''qualifying consent'' means his consent, except where sub-paragraph (2) applies.
 (2) Where—
(a) the person is a child,
(b) neither a decision of his to consent, nor a decision of his not to consent, is in force, and
(c) either he is not competent to deal with the issue of consent or, though he is competent to deal with that issue, he fails to do so,
 ''qualifying consent'' means the consent of a person who has parental responsibility for him.
 (3) In relation to analysis of DNA manufactured by the body of a person who has died an adult, ''qualifying consent'' means—
(a) if a decision of his to consent, or a decision of his not to consent, was in force immediately before he died, his consent;
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply, the consent of a person who stood in a qualifying relationship to him immediately before he died.
 (4) In relation to analysis of DNA manufactured by the body of a person who has died a child, ''qualifying consent'' means—
(a) if a decision of his to consent, or a decision of his not to consent, was in force immediately before he died, his consent;
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—
(i) the consent of a person who had parental responsibility for him immediately before he died, or
(ii) where no person had parental responsibility for him immediately before he died, the consent of a person who stood in a qualifying relationship to him at that time.
 3 (1) In its application to Scotland, paragraph 2 has effect with the following amendments.
 (2) In sub-paragraphs (2) and (4)(b)(i) and (ii), for ''parental responsibility for'' there is substituted ''parental responsibilities in relation to''.
 (3) At the end there is inserted—
 ''(5) In this paragraph—
''adult'' means a person who has attained the age of 16 years;
''child'' means a person who has not attained the age of 16 years;
''parental responsibilities'' has the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.36).''
Part 2
 Use for an excepted purpose 
4 This Part of this Schedule makes provision for the interpretation of ''use for an excepted purpose'' in section 46(1)(a)(ii).
 5 (1) Use of the results of an analysis of DNA for any of the following purposes is use for an excepted purpose—
(a) the medical diagnosis or treatment of the person whose body manufactured the DNA;
(b) purposes of functions of a coroner;
(c) purposes of functions of a procurator fiscal in connection with the investigation of deaths;
(d) the prevention or detection of crime;
(e) the conduct of a prosecution;
(f) purposes of national security;
(g) implementing an order or direction of a court or tribunal, including one outside the United Kingdom.
 (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), detecting crime shall be taken to include—
(a) establishing by whom, for what purpose, by what means and generally in what circumstances any crime was committed, and
(b) the apprehension of the person by whom any crime was committed;
 and the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(d) to the detection of crime includes any detection outside the United Kingdom of any crime or suspected crime.
 (3) In sub-paragraph (1)(e), the reference to a prosecution includes a prosecution brought in respect of a crime in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
 (4) In this paragraph, a reference to a crime includes a reference to any conduct which—
(a) constitutes one or more criminal offences (whether under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or a country or territory outside the United Kingdom),
(b) is, or corresponds to, conduct which, if it all took place in any one part of the United Kingdom, would constitute one or more criminal offences, or
(c) constitutes one or more offences of a kind triable by court-martial under the Army Act 1955 (3&4 Eliz.2 c.18), the Air Force Act 1955 (3&4 Eliz.2 c.19) or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53).
 (5) Sub-paragraph (1)(g) shall not be taken to confer any power to make orders or give directions.
 6 Use of the results of an analysis of DNA for any of the following purposes is use for an excepted purpose if the bodily material concerned is an existing holding—
(a) clinical audit;
(b) determining the cause of death;
(c) education or training relating to—
(i) human health, or
(ii) research in connection with disorders, or the functioning, of the human body;
(d) establishing after a person's death the efficacy of any drug or other treatment administered to him;
(e) obtaining scientific or medical information about a living or deceased person which may be relevant to any other person (including a future person);
(f) public health monitoring;
(g) quality assurance;
(h) research in connection with disorders, or the functioning, of the human body;
(i) transplantation.
 7 Use of the results of an analysis of DNA for any of the following purposes is use for an excepted purpose if the bodily material concerned is from the body of a living person—
(a) clinical audit;
(b) education or training which is incidental to medical diagnosis or treatment;
(c) public health monitoring;
(d) quality assurance.
 8 Use of the results of an analysis of DNA for a purpose specified in paragraph 6 is use for an excepted purpose if the use in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland, for that purpose of the bodily material concerned is authorised by section 1(1) or (7)(c).
 9 Use of the results of an analysis of DNA for the purpose of research of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) of section 51 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (surgical, medical, nursing, dental or psychological research) is use for an excepted purpose if the carrying-out in Scotland of the research is authorised under that section.
 10 The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph 5, 6 or 7 for the purpose of—
(a) varying or omitting any of the purposes specified in that paragraph, or
(b) adding to the purposes so specified.'.
—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 7 agreed to. 
 Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 8 agreed to. 
 Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Extent

Amendments made: No. 168, in 
clause 61, page 35, line 13, leave out ', 47'. 
No. 169, in
clause 61, page 35, line 15, leave out '47(7)' and insert 
 '56(10) or paragraph 10 of Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary)'. 
No. 170, in 
clause 61, page 35, line 16, after '56(3)(a)' insert 
 ', (4), (8) and (9)'. 
No. 171, in 
clause 61, page 35, line 16, leave out 'section 47' and insert 
 'Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary)'. 
No. 172, in 
clause 61, page 35, line 18, after '46' insert 
 'or Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary)'. 
No. 173, in 
clause 61, page 35, line 19, leave out first 'section' insert 'sections 56(10) and'. 
No. 174, in 
clause 61, page 35, line 19, at end insert 
 ', and 
 ( ) Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary), except paragraph 3, and section 46(4) so far as relating thereto.'. 
No. 175, in 
clause 61, page 35, line 22, leave out 
 'Part 2 of Schedule 5' 
 and insert 
 'paragraph 3 of Schedule (Section 46: Supplementary)'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.] 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - Commencement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: I signalled earlier that I might raise a minor issue at this time. I give the Committee advance notice that I have no comments to make on clause 63—the short title.
 We touched earlier on the fact that the BioIndustry Association is concerned that, before the Bill's criminalising provisions come into force, adequate time needs to be given for the codes of practice to be fully understood and taught, not simply published. I wish to probe the Government's intention on what sort of gap they want to allow between publication of the final codes of practice—the Minister told us that the draft codes will be sent out for consultation and so forth—and their commencement, as people will need to be taught about them and made aware of their provisions. 
 Those important provisions will criminalise activity—it is not necessarily of a controversial kind, but it is still unsatisfactory—that has been going and may still be going on in respect of research activities on cells. Will the gap will be sufficient to ensure that people involved in such activity are not caught, or at least that enough planning materials are made available to industry and academia to ensure that 
 everyone involved in clinical governance has the time in a crowded NHS agenda to make sure that it is done properly? That is my only question.

Rosie Winterton: Obviously, there will be various stages in the implementation of the proposals. Going back to basics, as we have said before, the Bill builds on best practice. We already have a lot of guidance in the public domain, which is within reach for those working on the front line. Once the shadow authority is set up, there will be consultation on the codes of practice and on any necessary training. Following that, in the many instances when licences will be required, the very process of putting together and making an application will itself be an educative process.
 I hope that by the time the final codes of practice are published, people will have a clear understanding of what is expected. At the same time, common sense will be exercised to ensure that the NHS and others are ready for implementation. Once again, I emphasise that the Bill is meant to improve confidence in the system, and ensure that those who undertake medical and scientific research are clear about what is expected of them. Failing to take the approach that I have outlined will go against the way in which we consulted on the Bill and the fact that we will continue to involve people in the decision-making process. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mrs. Adams and you, Mr. Hurst, for your understanding and wise chairmanship. I also thank the Clerk and the other officials who presided over the Committee with such efficiency, understanding and co-operation.
 I particularly thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has brought his own expertise and incisiveness to the Committee. I know that he feels that certain hon. Members have sometimes brought darkness over him, but he has only ever enlightened us. 
 I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) for her support as the Government Whip. She has been exemplary and has kept our proceedings well under control, as I always knew she would. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has done a marvellous job as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, which is nothing less than we would expect. 
 I commend Labour Members on the Committee on their efforts and interventions and on their enthusiasm and commitment. 
 I thank my officials for their hard work. They have shown a good understanding of the needs of all hon. Members and have tried to give assistance where they could. 
 I also thank Opposition Members for their constructive opposition; it is a triumph of consensus that there have been no Divisions. The Committee has been overwhelmed by expertise on both sides, which has greatly helped our deliberations. I have been astonished at times by the way in which some Opposition Members have thrown caution and their reputations to the wind by revealing the skeletons in their cupboards.

Ian Gibson: You might end up in the Cabinet if you don't watch out.

Rosie Winterton: Yes, exactly.
 Our scrutiny of the Bill has been very productive. The Government have undertaken to consider several of the points that were raised, and we will continue the dialogue over the coming weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said, the Bill will be a landmark. It will balance the need for medical and scientific research and for transplantation with our need, as legislators, to ensure that the tragic events that caused such distress to so many families never happen again.

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) sends his apologies to the Committee. He would have been delighted to have attended this final sitting, but he is absent on duty. However, I know that he wants to be associated with the remarks that I shall make.
 It has truly been a pleasure to serve on this Committee. Others will have observed that I am non-confrontational by nature, and this has been a consensual Committee, as one would expect. There has been no disagreement in principle with anything that we have discussed during our eight sittings. Our proceedings have been laced with a degree of levity; the Minister mentioned the skeletons. However, that should not disguise the seriousness of the issues. 
 I feel personally involved because I began my medical career at the Bristol royal infirmary where, of course, all this began. It is important to reflect on the sombre nature of our deliberations as well as on the lighter moments that accompanied them. As I said on Second Reading, this Bill is a good measure. I hope that we have made it better, that it will go from strength to strength and that, when it is finally enacted, it will be a piece of work in which the public will have confidence and with which the industry, medical researchers and health professionals will be comfortable. 
 I thank you, Mr. Hurst, and Mrs. Adams for chairing our meetings so well. I thank the Clerk and his Department for their expertise, and the civil servants who have done such a good job, particularly bearing in mind the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, which we shall continue to highlight. They have navigated this complicated area expertly. I should like also to thank the servants of the House and the police for keeping us in order. I am happy to observe that yesterday's events 
 in the Chamber have not been mirrored in our proceedings. We and our public, who have been impressively numerous, have been kept well in order. I wish the Bill Godspeed.

Evan Harris: I echo the words of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Westbury in thanking you, Mr. Hurst, and Mrs. Adams for having presided over the proceedings so efficiently and fairly. I pass on my thanks to the staff of the Public Bill Office who have been very helpful to Opposition Members by giving us advice on amendments, although I take responsibility for all flaws. I should also like to thank the Minister's Bill team. It would be invidious and possibly injurious to name those whom I found particularly obliging, but it has been the sort of Bill for which it has been necessary to get information directly, and they have been extremely helpful in Committee, in conferences and outside the House.
 I thank the Minister and the Under-Secretary for the way in which they have conducted proceedings. I hold no malice against the Under-Secretary, although I hope that his former bosses will overlook his stated opinion that he wanted them banged up, by which I assume he meant locked up—one never knows these days. I hope that they will not look too harshly on him when I send those remarks to them.

Stephen Ladyman: I would point out that two of them took me to River Cafe for lunch yesterday. When I worked for them, they never showed any signs of wanting to do that.

Evan Harris: I presume that that was before they had seen the Under-Secretary's remarks, otherwise he might have been invited as a food taster. I also thank other Opposition Members for the spirit in which they have conducted themselves. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) for his sage advice—as my consultant, as I would put it—and to congratulate the Liberal Democrat Members on a 100 per cent. turnout.
 The Bill is a good Bill. There are remarks that we can save for Third Reading, but although there have, of course, been differences of opinion, it is pleasing that we have had no Divisions. I hope that there will be no significant disagreements during the Bill's remaining stages. The Bill is important, although I hope that it would have been introduced even if the tragedies had not occurred. As with many things in clinical practice, legislation is clearly required, even if we do not recognise that at the time. Parliamentary timetables being what they are, it is a sad fact of life that it takes some incidents and the reports that come from them to bring us to such a point. Nevertheless, it is good that the Bill has progressed so well and—I look at the Government Whip—in such good time in Committee.

Richard Taylor: It has all been said, except from my perspective of—still—an amateur MP. I thank you, Mr. Hurst, and Mrs. Adams for your kindness and guidance, and also the Ministers, for their unfailing affability. There have been no attempts to put Opposition Members down—in certain larger arenas I have felt that some Ministers
 were definitely trying to put me in my place. I have enjoyed this Committee much more than the other Standing Committee on which I served because it has been non-confrontational and largely consensual. I am also so pleased that the Minister is to reconsider at least one of the issues that I raised.

Alan Hurst: On behalf of my co-Chairman, I should like to thank hon. Members for their kind remarks and for their conduct during the Bill's passage
 in Committee. The only improvement from the point of view of the person in the Chair would have been if all hon. Members had received an honorary doctorate for the duration of proceedings, which would have made things more straightforward.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at seven minutes past Three o'clock.